Jackson, Chargers likely still tied

Von Miller, left, a Texas A&M football player who plans to enter the NFL draft, and San Diego Chargers' Vincent Jackson head toward a bus outside the federal courthouse after a hearing Wednesday, April 6, 2011, in St Paul, Minn. A group of players is asking a judge to issue a preliminary injunction on the lockout the owners imposed after talks on a new collective bargaining agreement broke off three weeks ago. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)
— AP

Von Miller, left, a Texas A&M football player who plans to enter the NFL draft, and San Diego Chargers' Vincent Jackson head toward a bus outside the federal courthouse after a hearing Wednesday, April 6, 2011, in St Paul, Minn. A group of players is asking a judge to issue a preliminary injunction on the lockout the owners imposed after talks on a new collective bargaining agreement broke off three weeks ago. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)
/ AP

Vincent Jackson’s status could play a role as negotiations toward a new NFL labor deal wind to an anticipated resolution over the next few days.

While it is not inconceivable the sensational wide receiver could be playing elsewhere this season, those in the know overwhelmingly believe Jackson will ultimately be a Charger in 2011.

Multiple people around the league said Monday they expect a new Collective Bargaining Agreement to be agreed to within the next six days at the latest, and numerous reports suggest a deal could come sooner.

League officials will convene in Atlanta on Thursday with the idea owners will vote to ratify the CBA and other executives will receive a rules primer.

It is possible undrafted free agents could be signed as soon as Sunday or Monday, and a new league year (and free agency) could begin the middle of next week.

As for what this means specifically to the Jackson-Chargers relationship: how to settle the antitrust lawsuit of which Jackson is a name plaintiff is among the issues reportedly left to haggle as owners and players inch toward a new CBA.

Indications from those close to Jackson have been that he would accept the franchise tag – and the accompanying $11 million-plus for one season -- if he had to. But Jackson’s willingness to be a part of the antitrust lawsuit was with an eye toward getting the franchise tag abolished or possibly being exempted from the tag.

By all accounts, Jackson wants to remain in San Diego. But he also believes he has played long enough and well enough to have earned a multi-year deal. Neil Schwartz, Jackson's agent, declined comment when reached Monday.

Jackson led the league in average per catch between 2008 and ’09. His 2,513 receiving yards since ’08 are second on the Chargers, just 130 yards behind than Antonio Gates despite playing in six fewer games than Gates.

Still, due to two DUI arrests and a game-day citation for driving with a suspended license, the Chargers do not presently reciprocate Jackson’s desire for a multi-year deal that would almost certainly average more than $10 million per year.

The Chargers designated Jackson as their franchise player in February, a couple weeks before owners locked out players on March 12. That designation guarantees Jackson the equivalent of the average salary of the top five wide receivers for one season.

While the franchise tag will be part of the new CBA, Jackson was among 10 name plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit filed against owners concurrent with the lockout. Among those 10 players, New England guard Logan Mankins and Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning are also their team’s franchise player in 2011.

Manning is almost certain to receive a long-term deal from the Colts, as their entire roster is essentially structured around his talent and his salary.

That leaves Jackson and Mankins as most reluctant to simply go along with a settlement if it means they are once against stuck without long-term deals.

While talks are ongoing, people familiar with the negotiations have said it is unlikely Mankins and Jackson will be freed from their franchise status. But they could be assured that they will only be franchised once instead of the maximum allowable three consecutive years. There is also the possibility both could be compensated for the money they lost in 2010.